Electoral Court reaffirms strict deadlines, dismissing independent candidates’ bids

Court
The Electoral Court has dealt a decisive blow to two prospective independent candidates seeking to contest ward seats in the local government elections.

Electoral Court reaffirms strict deadlines, dismissing independent candidates’ bids

Court
The Electoral Court has dealt a decisive blow to two prospective independent candidates seeking to contest ward seats in the local government elections.

The Electoral Court has dealt a decisive blow to two prospective independent candidates seeking to contest ward seats in the local government elections, dismissing their legal challenges after they failed to meet the statutory threshold of 50 valid voter signatures.

In separate judgments handed down in Bloemfontein last week, the court reaffirmed that while the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) bears a facilitative duty toward prospective candidates, statutory cut-offs for submitting valid supporter signatures are peremptory and cannot be cured once nomination deadlines expire.

The rulings, delivered in Phoshoko v Electoral Commission of South Africa and Dr Franck Naidoo v Nkomo and Others, underscore the stringent verification requirements imposed on independent ward aspirants under Section 17(2)(a) of the Local Government: Municipal Electoral Act 27 of 2000.

Under the governing legislation and its accompanying regulations, an independent ward candidate must lodge a nomination accompanied by the prescribed form containing the signatures and identity numbers of at least 50 registered voters enrolled on the relevant ward’s segment of the voters’ roll.

Prospective candidate ‘aware of election timetable well in advance’

In the first matter, Llala Peter Phoshoko sought to contest ward 33 in the Phokwane Municipality in Hartswater for the 2026 local government elections as an independent candidate. Phoshoko submitted his nomination papers on the day nominations closed, supported by 53 signatures. However, subsequent verification by the IEC revealed that 13 of those signatures were invalid because the signatories were not registered in Ward 33, were not registered voters at all, or had submitted invalid identity numbers. With only 40 valid signatures remaining, the IEC excluded him from the certified candidate list.

Phoshoko approached the court to overturn his exclusion, arguing that the IEC had failed to notify him timeously of defects and contending that the 50-signature requirement was irrational and unconstitutional. While the court criticised the IEC, holding that under the principles in Johnson v Electoral Commission, the commission has a duty to inform candidates within a reasonable time when nominations fail so as not to undermine public confidence, it held that this administrative lapse could not Acting judge S. Yacoob stressed that Phoshoko was aware of the election timetable well in advance and had reasonable means to verify his supporters’ eligibility.

Because he waited until the last minute, and because post-deadline corrections are strictly limited to minor administrative errors such as identity documents or acceptance forms, he was disqualified by operation of law.

Incorrect identity numbers and unregistered signatories abound

A remarkably similar dispute unfolded in eThekwini’s Ward 26, where dr. Franck Naidoo sought nomination for the municipal elections. Naidoo personally delivered his nomination papers to the Commission’s eThekwini office on 28 August 2026 at around 16:00, just an hour before the 17:00 deadline. While he submitted a form with 58 signatures, official verification against the voters’ roll showed incorrect identity numbers and unregistered signatories, leaving him with only 43 verified voters. The IEC notified him of his disqualification on 31 August 2026.

Representing himself, Naidoo applied to review the IEC’s decision and compel it to accept corrected identity numbers. He conceded that several submitted numbers were inaccurate, but attributed the errors to voters’ reluctance to share identity numbers under the Protection of Personal Information Act (Popia). He contended that he was merely correcting digits rather than substituting nominators.

Delivering the court’s judgment, Professor P.R. Phooko, concurred with by judge L. Adams and acting judge S. Yacoob, dismissed the application. The court found that the Popia argument was not properly pleaded and held, following the precedent in Nyaku v Electoral Commission, that the act does not permit rectification or supplementation of signature shortfalls once the nomination window shuts.

ALSO READ: ANC succeeds in court case to include 181 late nominees

You need to be Logged In to leave a comment.

Gift this article